Please do explain how "YOU" are going to do that, realistically, as the population continues to grow at the rate it currently does?

By supporting legislation aimed at reducing emissions. By pointing out the fallacies that profit-motivated corporations and their paid politicians use to manipulate the undereducated/misinformed sheep in who buy into their Fox-world. By supporting businesses that promote eco-friendly products and avoiding the opposite.

There is a story about a young lady walking along the beach picking up starfish and tossing them back into the ocean after a storm that flung thousands of them onto the beach. Someone came along and said, "what difference does it make; so many are going to die, you can't possibly save them all." She replied as she tossed another back, "Makes a difference to that one." We can't individually fix the problem, but every little bit we do serves to mitigate the damage being done. The more that participate, the larger the effect. Sorry you can't seem to make that connection.

Research performed in an unethical manner such that it produces a predefined result is quickly rejected by the peer review system. The investigators are castigated and lose their ability to secure gov't funding or publish in any journal worth its salt. That's why big tobacco isn't publishing those studies anymore and have to fund anti-smoking programs and print warning labels on their products.

Universities and research foundations are very tightly regulated and scrutinized for breaches of ethics and therefore do not tolerate shady science for fear of the penalties. That's why we can trust the opinions of scientists working in these ivory towers and reject those who don't have strong credentials. Like you.

How are you going to reduce when the population is expanding and growing.

I know it's difficult for you to carry a thought from one line to the next when you're completely blinded by the Fox Illusion, but try and stick with me- by education, legislation, personal choices in concert with the increasing global awareness that something must be done.

69% plus of the FF C02 emitters on this planet DO NOT want anything to do with your UTOPIAN horseshet ideology

Wow. You are thick as a brick. I don't care what the corporations want. I only care what the people want and through legislation, education and personal choice we can force corporations to adopt greener practices. They live & die on investor moods and consumer choice.

It's obvious you're inflexible and think the whole world must bow to those who share your obtuse reasoning, but sorry pal, your philosophy is historically doomed. Good luck. Keep setting up the targets, I need the practice sniping...

While the deniers will make the most noise over a post such as this, I believe we non-deniers learn magnificently from the items you post.

So fear not, your efforts here are not for waste!

It's too bad that some people, even when they seem curious, are unable to learn. But then again, as one rock star famously sings,You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know.

while there are many who persist in stating that there is no anthropogenic source of climate change, the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere is quite well understood at this point, there is no scientific controversy.

Increasing the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increases the global mean temperature.

Given that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the largest source of CO2 into the atmosphere it isn't a stretch to see that, on top of all the natural variability of climate, there is an anthropogenic component which is significant, and proceeding at a rate that has no historic counterpart.

The subsequent changes to the climate are difficult to predict precisely because there is no guidance from the past, and in such a case we have to decide whether or not to do something, and if we do something, just what to do. These decisions can be based on many things, I'd suggest that science is certainly a part of that decision making process. One can base it on economic factors. Another basis can be political.

But I'd suggest that the physical description of what the consequences of any of these decisions are is well described by the current climate science, and these only get better with time. The arguments on this are over variability that is now small compared to the magnitude of the changes since the late 1800s.

It is not utopian to suggest that we consider the cost of the alteration of the environment and include it in the use of the agent that is altering the environment, what I'd term "fair pricing," and let the "magic" of the "free market" take over. Failure to manage these commons, which include not only the atmosphere but also the "hydrosphere" (we are pumping ancient ground water at a rate far greater than that water is being replenished), and the biosphere, will have predictable consequences.

Denying the scientific basis of these consequences won't change the outcome, except to accelerate those outcomes where no action is taken. See the North Atlantic fisheries as an example (and the global fisheries for that matter).

But back to topic of climate change... here is a classic problem of managing a common resource, in this case the atmosphere, where all of us dump stuff that is causing climate change and damaging the environment... how would a libertarian solve that problem?

Ron Paul denied that humans are causing it. But for other pollution issues he suggested using nuisance laws.

Don't have much to add today but if you CAGW true believers could possibly open your eyeballs there is a couple summaries in the link below. The first exposes the economic fallacy of the "green and CO2 reduction" policy by some noted MIT economists. The second is a review of published science with the conclusion that the Holocene maximum and the Medival warm periods were both much warmer in the Arctic than today.

Ed, the cat's been out of the bag for quite sometime on the relationship between temps and atmospheric CO2 content-First the temps increase followed by CO2 increase- this has been studied, verified, and published over and over again ad nausem. The fact that we are adding to it by combustion of FF and the temps haven't even reached earlier periods of the holocene ( or as some are calling it now the Anthropocene) is what "the science" should be studying. Instead you guys seek to burden the producing citizenry with additional taxation to support the growing legions of non productive people and then have the gall to claim we are not paying the true costs of our lifestyle and goods. It is breathtaking; the absolute 180 degree reversal of reality you are attempting to foist upon us.

Yeah Chief i agree. The more vocal proponents of the scam must either not have children or have seen to it that they have pursued lifetime government work. The policies they promote will collapse the tent on the rest of us and somehow they erroneously believe they'll will escape the ruination they create. Not gonna happen, their little la la land.

Exactly Ed- the past warmings didn't have anything to do with elevated CO2 levels. The current warming has little to do with increased CO2 content, rather it is a minor positive feedback. Repeated studies have shown that CO2 lags temps anywhere from months to centuries. There are no credible studies convincingly showing CO2 increases precede temp increases. Any idiot(s) can and are determining this.And you are wrong; there were plenty of people around during the holocene maximum 8000 to 4000 b.p., there were plenty of people around during the roman warm period 2000 b.p., there were plenty of people around for the medival warm period 1000 to 700 b.p.

Anyway, GST records have there well documented problems,but i assume that on average they mark trends as do proxy records. Why are we cooling now when all the "consensus science" says we should be rocketing upwards with the CO2 levels? Some fundamental mechanisms have yet to be discovered, misunderstood, or underestimated. The sixty four thousand dollar question is; What have we missed?